Pages

Friday, August 6

Who Was Enoch, the "Man Who Never Died"?

Along with Melchizedek, Enoch is one of the most interesting and enigmatic figures in sacred Scripture. What do we know about this man? Why did God take him? By examining the scant references in Scripture, perhaps we can understand a little more about this unknown man, Enoch. We are first told about Enoch in Genesis 5:18-24, which says, "When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. After he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Jared lived a total of 962 years, and then he died. When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked faithfully with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Enoch lives a total of 365 years. Enoch walked faithfully with God, then he was no more, because God took him away."(Picture credit to: KKBoss.)

Now, "he was no more, because God took him away" has for some indicated that Enoch died, but this phrase used of Enoch is not used of any of the other individuals in this early genealogy. As a side-note, Enoch was the "seventh from Adam," (Jude 1:14) and in the narrative is the great, great, great, great grandson of Adam and Eve. Enoch's family line is also covered in Luke 3:37, which says, "the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch...". Now, the book of Hebrews also talks about Enoch. This is where we find the early Christian interpretation that Enoch did not die, but was taken by God. Hebrews 11:5says, "By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: 'He could not be found, because God had taken him away.' [quoting Genesis 5:24] For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God." From this we can gather that Enoch, son of Jared, truly was taken to heaven, just as the prophet Elijah was in 2nd Kings 2.But perhaps what Enoch is most famous for is the books of Enoch. In the New Testament, Jude 1:14-15 tells us, "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: 'See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.'" The question arises - if Enoch was a prophet, where did Jude find the words of Enoch? The most common answer is that these words are derived from 1st Enoch 1:9, part of the Pseudipigrapha, and considered non-cannon. The first book of Enoch is referred to as the "Book of the Watchers." It tells us about names and functions of the "seven archangels," the final place of punishment for fallen angels, Sheol, the Tree of Life, how the fallen angel "Semjâzâ" told the fallen to mate with women, the creation of Nephilim, it speaks of the chief fallen - Azazel, and speaks of the appeal of the archangels Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael.It also speaks of Raphael's imprisonment of the fallen Azazel, and the binding of the fallen angels by Michael. Now, from a Christian standpoint, 1st Enoch is not considered part of the accepted canon, and there are a number of discrepancies. For example, 1st Enoch says that a fallen angel named Gadriel tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden. In the New Testament, however, Revelation 20:2 portrays Satan as being the tempter of the Genesis narrative. On another note, there are several other works of Enochian literature: 2nd Enoch and 3rd Enoch. 3rd Enoch relates how Enoch was taken up to Heaven in a chariot of fire (3rd Enoch 6:1;7:1), similar to the assumption of the prophet Elijah. But what is of more interest is 3rd Enoch 9:1-5; 15:1-2, which talks about how Enoch is transformed into an angel. Many people today, following the passing of a loved one, say that he or she has gone on to become an angel. This concept is not found within the Christian canon, but it may derive in part from these Enochian references. Further, it was these three books of Enoch that promoted the Jewish interpretation of the Nephilim of Genesis as referring to the offspring of fallen angels, a notion similar to the demigods of Greek lore. The 2014 film Noah, in its portrayal of the fallen angels, is inspired in part by these books of Enoch.From the sacred Scripture, at least, we can gather that, Enoch was a man of faith. Enoch, like Elijah, was taken up to Heaven in some fashion - whether it was by a "storm chariot" (3rd Enoch 6:1; 7:1), a chariot of fire like Elijah (2nd Kings 2:11-12) or means, we do not know. But this later Jewish and Christian interpretation of Genesis appears to be fairly consistent insofar as Enoch being taken away by God did not refer to his physical death, but rather to some kind of translation or rapture into heaven. It is for this reason that many scholars hold that the Two Witnesses in the Apocalypse of John refer to either Enoch and Elijah or Moses and Elijah. Moses and Elijah both appeared at the Transfiguration of Christ, whereas Enoch and Elijah are both depicted as men who did not experience physical death - something the Two Witnesses come to experience. Further, although later pseudipigraphal literature fleshes him out as the angel Metatron, unfortunately, the scant references from Genesis, Hebrews and Jude do not convey much about this enigmatic figure. It is this mysterious nature that makes the figure of Enoch so compelling to so many. Regardless of how one interprets the life and later influence of Enoch, however, Hebrews portrays him as a man who lived a moral and faithful life, and can serve as an inspiration to Christians, and as a continual source of curiosity.

What are you talking about? You wrote earlier in the article that Enoch did not die but was taken away by Gog. But in your second last para you said Enoch died about 3017 B.C. With such inconsistencies how to give credence to your viewpoints contained in your article?

This article was written last year, when this was simply a blog run by one person. We are now a ministry, and try as often as possible to correct such mistakes. However, even in peer reviewed articles in scientific journals, I have noticed inconsistencies. We are finite, imperfect beings, and as such are prone to make mistakes. You made an error in your comment - you said "taken away by Gog." He was taken away by God, not Gog. Does this make your comment any less credible? Not at all, because it is still understandable. What should have been noted was, "I noticed an inconsistency in your article between this point and this point." This then allows us to correct any errors. Thank you for pointing out the where I erred, but it does not make the viewpoint any less credible. If it did, it would mean that your comment, which contains a spelling error, would also be rendered less credible. We have now fixed the miswording. Thank you for your comment, take care, and may God bless you.

We must also remember there are many times that the Bible contradicts itself. In cases like this we turn to a symbolic interpretation, instead of a literal one. We must also remember that Enoch did not die, so it is entirely possible he could have been transformed into an angel. If it was quoted from in Jude, why would only a few verses be considered truth? If it was truly written by Enoch, one of 3 men to never, ever die- why would it be inaccurate? The 2nd and 3rd books of Enoch, we can't be sure about. But 1st Enoch is solid. The only reason it's non-cannon because a man a long time ago said it wasn't. It doesn't make it any more or less true.

Thank you for your comment. However, we respectfully disagree. You stated, "there are many times that the Bible contradicts itself." The Bible does not contradict itself, and by not citing an example, it does not help your argument. If you have questions or objections about alleged contradictions, feel free to email us.

It should be noted that most of the pseudipigraphal were written in the 1st century BC-1st century AD, and since Enoch was translated into Heaven approximately 3017 BC, it is certainly a stretch for us to believe that a document clearly written (and dated by most historians) at 100 BC-100 AD was authored by Enoch. Most scholars, theologians, and historians acknowledge that Enoch was not actually written by Enoch.

Enoch was taken by God about 3017 BC, and if he truly wrote a book of prophecy, it must have been written sometime in the 365 years beforehand, so sometime between 3,382-3017 BC. This is calculated from several factors in Scripture. Western scholars date 1st Enoch to around 300 BC, which is still over 2500 years after Enoch was taken to heaven, and the latter additions are dated to around 100 AD, which is around 3100 years after Enoch was taken. 1st Enoch was written in the 160’s BC. Most scholars date 2nd Enoch to the late first century AD. Also, 3rd Enoch was clearly written by a legalistic Jew between 90-135 AD, and evidently these works could not have been written by Enoch.

One example of a theological inaccuracy is found in 1st Enoch 40:9, “the fourth [winged angel], who is set over the repentance unto hope of those who inherit eternal life, is named Phanuel.” The Bible never mentions an angel named Phanuel, let alone an angel who is set over the repentance of those who inherit eternal life. This statement in and of itself contradicts what the Word of God teaches. We read in 1st Timothy 2:5 that Jesus Christ is the only Mediator between God and men, and certainly not an angel named Phanuel, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Repentance is between a man and Jesus Christ alone. Only Jesus died for our sins, and shed His blood to pay for them (1st Peter 1:18-19); therefore, we must be diligent to guard and defend against imposters and liars who would lead people to believe otherwise. 1st John 2:22 clearly declares all Christ-deniers as liars, guilty before God.

We read in the Book of Enoch, chapter 69:8-12, “And the fourth was named Penemue; he taught the children of men the bitter and the sweet, and he taught them all the secrets of their wisdom. And he instructed mankind in writing with ink and paper, and thereby many sinned from eternity to eternity and until this day. For men were not created for such a purpose, to give confirmation to their good faith with pen and ink. For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them, but through this their knowledge they are perishing, and through this power it is consuming me.” This passage teaches that man's wisdom came from a demon named Penemue. Ink and paper did not cause the fall of the human race, it was Adam's sin that brought sin into the world (Romans 5:12); not evil literature. Mankind is inherently evil of himself, prone to the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21). Since then, “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time” (Romans 8:22).

Also, 1st Enoch 7:12-15 says, “Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all which the labor of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them; When they turned themselves against men, in order to devour them; And began to injure birds, beasts, reptiles, and fishes, to eat their flesh one after another, and to drink their blood. Then the earth reproved the unrighteous.” A cubit is approximately 1.5 feet. Therefore, according to the book of Enoch, women reproduced with fallen angels and the result was 450 ft. tall offspring. While it is true that we had giants who were 9 ft tall, nowhere have we found a 450 ft. giant. Noah’s Ark was also 300 cubits long (Genesis 6:15). Does this mean that these offspring were as long as the ark? The birth process surely would have been odd, indeed. Clearly, this goes against the Natural Laws of Science which God put into place, and continue to hold the universe together.

"If it was quoted from in Jude, why would only a few verses be considered truth?" There are numerous explanations given by theologians and scholars alike for this objection, and we do not intend to explore these or go in-depth. The simple explanation is that the quotations and mentions in Jude's letter are actual quotations of Enoch which were handed down through oral tradition. Few of these were recorded in 1st Enoch, which the writer must have believed would give his work further credibility. Oral tradition of the time was more reliable than it is now, because many people were not literate, and as such passed things down through oral tradition. Even if Jude quoted from 1st Enoch, does this mean that the Cretan Epimendes, whom Paul quotes from more than once, or the Greek dramatist Menander, among others, should also be regarded as fully Scriptural? Jude was simply quoting something that was true, but it does not make the book inspired. If I quoted from a Plato, does this mean I agree with all he wrote? No, it means that the quotation drives home my point. Aside from the debate about whether it was an actual quotation from 1st Enoch or a quotation handed down, the book also contains internal inconsistencies.

"The only reason it's non-[canon] [is] because a man a long time ago said it wasn't." This is a fallacious claim, since neither the Jews or the Christians of the time accepted it as Scripture. The Ethiopian Orthodox and the Eritrean Orthodox Church regards the book as canon, but no other Christian groups do. It was not "a man" who decided it long ago, it was the church, and it was for good reasons, and not only one reason. Since 1st Enoch was composed in the 1st century BC, it was not written by Enoch (Fahlbusch E., Bromiley G.W. The Encyclopedia of Christianity: P-Sh p.411. 2004).

As for whether or not we become angels, "No, angels are not glorified human beings. Matthew 22:30 explains that they do not marry or reproduce like humans, and Hebrews 12:22-23 says that when we get to the heavenly Jerusalem, we will be met by 'myriads of angels' and 'the spirits of righteous men made perfect' — two separate groups. Angels are a company or association, not a race descended from a common ancestor (Luke 20:34-36). We are called 'sons of men,' but angels are never called 'sons of angels.'" (Derived from Dr. John Bechtle's What Does The Bible Teach About Angels?) One being does not become another when it dies, anymore than a cat becomes a dog or a horse becomes a frog.

"'What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.' (Psalm 8:4-5) The Bible doesn't talk about ghosts, in the sense of spirits of dead people visiting earth. It indicates that once people die they have nothing to do with this world, and do not come back as wandering spirits. Luke 16:19-31 tells of two men who died. One asked to be allowed to return to earth to warn his brothers not to do what he did. He was apparently not allowed to return to earth and was told that it would do no good even if he could." (From Timothy James O'Hearn, Minutes With the Messiah)

Perhaps this has answered your questions/concerns, anonymous. If you have any further questions or comments, feel free to either comment below or send us an email. God bless you.

God did not sit down with pen and paper and write the Holy Bible, yet many say God wrote the Bible. God choose people to inspire so they could share their writings. Then people canonized these writings.(The ones they saw fit). So the Bible does not contradict itself, just that different prophets may see visions slightly different or write their prophesies differently. Not the Bible or God's fault.

The so-called "Book of Enoch" was written by a drunk jew trying to confuse everyone. The book is full of lies and contradictions, just like the "gnostic gospels" and the quran. We all know who the father of lies is.

Anonymous commentor #2,Logically and Biblically, to say "you are wrong" and then back up your claim by saying that God has given you memories (you alone?) that no one else clearly has access to is not only unbiblical in various ways, but also sort of misunderstands the first person who commented.

You see, their point was not that Enoch was not taken to heaven. This is recorded in Genesis 5 and Hebrews 11. His point is that the BOOK of Enoch (1st Enoch) was not written by the historical Enoch who lived a few hundred years after Creation. Enoch was indeed taken up into heaven, but 1st Enoch was written by a Jew much, much later on, and it does indeed contain "lies and contradictions, just like the 'gnostic gospels' and the quran."

So indeed, it may be that you have memories (visions or dreams would be a better term) of such events, because such events - at least the ascension of Enoch - is biblical. But what the first commentor is saying is that 1st Enoch was not written by its claimed namesake, which is demonstrated in the article above.

Thank you for writing about this Book. Instead of 'dissertating', I"ll share another website which discusses the Book. It has a conclusion that I believe bears credence. Realizing, that the Bible was an agreed upon book by Theologians, which only and continually gets 'modernized" (much to my disgruntle) ..will likely purchase an Aramaic to English New Testament shortly. Have you heard about the "The Jesus Seminar", which included a study of the Book of Thomas. This stuff is never ending. Is criticism of this book of Enoch nit-picking that which was inspired as well. As noted, no man is infallible, not even Paul, yet many take what he wrote as a set of rules defining and re-defining 'sin' in churches, and make it 'their agenda'. Have we not learned "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" yet?! Finger pointing (plank pointing) is not what Christ wanted certainly. http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm

Stephen,You are welcome. I appreciate you taking the time to comment. I have indeed heard about the "Jesus Seminar," and I have read (and own) not only the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (unless you are referring to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, although I do not recall if JS has covered that), and have also researched the many problems in each of the non-canonical works such as the 114 sayings found in Thomas.

The Jesus Seminar is considered by a majority of the academic world to be fallacious at best. Their method of picking and choosing which sayings of Jesus they think he actually said was crude; special colored beads were picked if that individual felt as though Jesus actually said it. The Seminar is indeed critical scholarship, and sometimes critical scholarship can be beneficial. However, picking and choosing what Jesus said and what He did not say based on mere opinion is hardly scholarly.

As for the "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone," I would also note that this particular passage has been misused through the ages by Christendom. It is taken from John 7:59-8:11, the account of Jesus and the adulterer. It is perhaps one of the more famous stories from the canonical gospels - yet critical and evangelical scholars have noted that it was not actually part of the original gospel of John, or any gospel for that matter. The passage is not found in our oldest and best manuscripts of John, and the writing/vocabulary differ slightly from the rest of the Johannine work.

In fact, the aforementioned passage does not start to show up in Greek manuscripts until about the ninth century AD, almost 800 years after John was originally composed. It was added to the gospel by a later scribe, and became a very popular story from the Middle Ages until modern times. Certain lines may be original, and the story itself may have taken place but orally passed down - but it was not part of the original John. At one point, it was actually included in Dr. Luke's gospel. There is scholarly debate still over what we call the pericope adulterae, but generally it is thought not to be original. Your comment was noted, I simply wanted to clear up somewhat of a popular misconception. Indeed, no man is infallible - but God is. If God led men to write by His infallible nature, we would expect the autographs (the original manuscripts) to be infallible.

I realize this is not exactly what you had commented on, but felt that I may take the opportunity to address said points. Thank you again for your comment, Stephen, I will be certain to take a look at the link you provided.

Thank you for a fairly objective presentation of what is known and not known about Enoch and it's sources. I would add an observation about the Canon. Where each of us is on the Canon may be indicative of our view of God's sovereignty. Given the importance of God's word, and it's place in shaping the world and His people, I find it a challenge to believe that it does not say what He intended. For a sovereign God who flung the stars and knew me before the foundations of the world; I don't think that it is a stretch to assert that the scripture says exactly what He wants it to in the way He wants it through so many different writers.

The existence of the Apocrypha may challenge this to some people and I think it's a fair question. But that question too, goes to what one believes about a God who brings order and continuity. I don't personally refuse fellowship to those who subscribe to it but I will challenge it as a support for theological doctrine.

More precise to the point at hand and Enoch: there are multiple stories in the bible where we are not granted full disclosure. They are almost like peeks behind the curtain that reveal an astonishing truth. The truth that it's not 'all about us' and that we may be a part of an entirely bigger picture. Revelation, Jude and Job are good examples of this. I often struggle with the suffering of Job and loss of life to what end? Prove a point after God and Lucifer have a discussion? Well...yes. Because it's about God's glory and His economy is not mine. To the point here, I only get some of the information but He is still in control. That faith thing...it's pretty tough sometimes.

Anonymous,Thank you for taking the time to comment. We apologize for the delay in response. There is not a definite answer to that question, because it is still a matter of debate. Jewish and Christian tradition held that the Nephilim were the offspring of fallen angels and humans, but an idea increasing in strength has come up that the Sons of God were the Sethites - but not the Canaanites. There are various arguments for and against each view, which I could provide if you wish. This ministry holds the view that they were the actual offspring of the fallen and human women, but also recognizes that it is a doctrine no necessary for salvation. It is, however, one that greatly sheds light on the purpose of the flood. Would you like me to provide pros and cons of both views?

Enoch why no death as of yet we know that all born of flesh must die. we know that thru lust men are born this is why all have sin and are short. could he be born of the spirit so then was he a angle. no one has accended that first has decended as christ says and then again since our master states he seen the father and our master says no man has seen the father and enoch walked with the father. enoch will return in the seventh day and christ states he will raise his people up in the last day or seventh day as ezekiel also states in the valley of bones. know this that we will soon find out because these days will soon cover us. did not these fallen angles want enoch to talk to god for them he will be here for their judgment. as for these 450 foot things they also defiled animals also to create dinosors. so how far shall we go down this worm hole. now here prove these things so that you may know that they are truth or not. will he return to die or what

Anonymous, Thank you for taking the time to comment. You are correct in saying that "we know that all born of flesh must die." In fact, Hebrews 9:27 clearly states that "people are destined to die once and after that to face judgment". As for the Enochian tradition that he was an angel - or became one - this is a tradition not found in canonical Scripture. Also, the idea that the fallen angels needed Enoch to speak to God for them is unbiblical. Job 1-2, Zechariah 3, Revelation 10 and other passages demonstrate that Satan and his angels, who are indeed fallen, have the ability to come before the Throne of God and speak with Him.

Concerning the 450ft giants, the height itself is very highly improbable - and some translations of the books of Enoch place the height at 4500ft, which is even more improbable. The Creationist view of dinosaurs (the word itself did not come about until AD 1841) is that they were created by God - not fallen angels - on day five and six, that 40-50 species were on the Ark and died off over the generations by overhunting, lack of food, and other venues. It is also held by some that there are a few actual dinosaurs still in existence, hence why there are so many sightings of certain lake creatures as well as pterodactyl-like creatures or other reptilians. There is not Biblical support for the idea you've postulated wherein the fallen defiled animals leading to the development of dinosaurs. Aside from the idea that interspecies breeding between humanoids and creatures does not work, it is an unbiblical idea.

Finally, to your overall question: "will he return to die"? Indeed, the question is of a heavily theological and philosophical nature. To answer your question, instead of turning to the non-canonical books of Enoch, we turn to God's Word. Elijah was also taken from this world while he was still alive, and although he made a brief appearance (or two) during Jesus' ministry, Scripture does not record his death or Enoch's. Or does it? Revelation 11 speaks of two witnesses who will prophesy for the first half of the seven-year Tribulation. The powers they demonstrate are similar to those used by Elijah during his career as a prophet. At the end of the 3.5 years, they will be killed, and for 3.5 days their body will be seen "by many from every people, tribe, language and nation [who] will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial" (Rev. 11:9). After the 3.5 days, "the Spirit of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them" (11:11). They are then called up to heaven, and a severe earthquake ensues. In other words, we have here two unnamed prophets who quite possibly are Enoch and Elijah, and when they die, they will have fulfilled the notion of "all born of flesh must die," as you noted. It is also true that some think the Two Witnesses could be Moses and Elijah or someone else entirely, but if we consider the witnesses in the context of Enoch and Elijah's death, we see a possible solution. So, will he return to die? Quite possibly he will here, yes. Or, it is also possible that he "phased" out of the earthly body when he ascended to heaven and suffered a quick bodily death. Time will tell.

Thank you for this very interesting piece of writing, but I did spot a inconsistency. Towards the end if this piece of writing, the author mentions something about the prophecy by Enoch about the second coming of Christ and how this is true. Also, in the book of Jude, we find quoted yet another prophecy by Enoch. It makes absolutely no since how only two prophecies by Enoch are held to be true and the rest are not. There is sufficient evidence to discredit 2&3, but picking which prophecies and accounts of events to believe in chapter 1 I believe to be irrational and fallacy of logic. It would amount to picking only certain verses to follow in our bible. Either something is absolutely the truth or it's a lie, there is no in between.

Jason,Thank you for taking the time to comment. It is not fallacious once the reasoning is further explained. I recall only referencing one prophecy from Enoch recorded in Scripture, and it does indeed detail the second coming - this is the prophecy found within Jude's epistle. There is surmountable evidence to discredit the second and third books of Enoch, yes, but there is also sufficient evidence to discredit 1st Enoch. You are correct about picking and choosing, yet simply because a work is included in Scripture does not mean it is entirely true.

Permit me to give you an example. When Paul was addressing the Greek audience in Athens about AD 49, he quoted from the Cretan philosopher Epimenides as well as the Cilician Stoic philosopher Aratus (Acts 17:28). In addition to this, in his letter to Titus written ca.AD 63-64, he again quotes the Cretan philosopher Epimenides (1:12). He also uses a saying from the Greek poet Menander in 1st Corinthians 15:33. However, simply because Paul cites these philosophers and the poet does not necessitate that everything they wrote was truth. Regarding whether or not Jude 14-15 quotes 1st Enoch 1:9, it is generally unnoticed that this is not an exact quote from 1st Enoch. Jude also does not attribute the quote to a book, either. Simply quoting something does not give it authority. It is possible that Jude quoted this section of 1st Enoch and considered the portion quoted to represent God's truth, but we do not need to conclude that the entire book is God's Word.

It is entirely probable that he quoted (if indeed it is a direct quote) 1st Enoch because the opposition treasured the work, and used it as ammunition against them. It is also possible that the false teachers rejected the Christian tradition concerning Jesus' coming so he cited the prophecy from Enoch. The content of the prophecy itself is not unlike what is found elsewhere in Scripture. Jude did not claim that the work was inspired. There are various other factors to examine if necessary, and if it be relevant, reasons for discrediting 1st Enoch can also be provided; yet the aforementioned comments should suffice.

First off please forgive my spelling, when I get excited I dont check,... OK, Ive been born again for almost 12 years, and read many different translations, and due to human interp. It to my to show me a little more light. We as humans tend to read the bible word for word, and thae way, John, Luke, Matthew may have wrote there truth or book, may lead some people to interp. Things way off, Then my son said mom listen, read gods word,..... we tell our children to listen and obey, just cause im a grown up inmy childrens eyes I am gods child and therefor I shoul obey and listen to gods word..m GODS WORD. So other than old testament or maybe king james. Our bibles have been rewritten and rewritten, so it s doctrin has bits and pices with human twist, .. which in return exspains all the confusion, so many times a pastor or priest, will say listen to what john said. Thats johns exsperience those are not gods word, until I focused on god word andgot out my old testiment and king james . The light of god an gentle words of my savor show me the truth and the light,.. Im human by all means , not any where near perfect, Im greatful, loving most of all my husband and I are extremely giving,. Untill we have sufferd greatly, asked (why us we try trytry) that it took me to question my faith, I needed to have some understanding to find out its for gods understanding and to stick with his and jesus word. Why are we told so many ways when theres one gods ? Thers no innterprtation, its what god says, ???????

Anonymous,Thank you for taking the time to comment! My answer to your question would be yes! And no. Here is why: according to Matthew 17:11, "Jesus replied, 'To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him...' the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist."

So if we only looked at that verse, maybe someone may say, "John the Baptist was Elijah reborn, so Elijah finally died." But this is not true, according to Scripture. Here is why. According to John 1:21, John the Baptist had been asked who he was. "'...Are you Elijah?' He said, 'I am not.'" John denied being Elijah. But Jesus' reference seems to imply that he is. So how do we understand this?

Well, consider the context that Christ spoke in. When we read his quote from Matthew 17, he had literally just gotten done talking with Moses and the actual Elijah on the mountaintop. He then proceeds to say that Elijah WILL come to restore all things, then on another said he has ALREADY come. Evidently, he is referring to two separate things. So why would Elijah come again, and how is John the Baptist connected to Elijah?

A few more verses help clear this up for us. According to Malachi 3:1, God planned on sending a messenger "to prepare the way before me." This is later identified as John the Baptist in the New Testament. Yet - in the same book, we receive mention of Elijah. According to Malachi 4:5-6, "See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction."

Essentially, this Hebraic passage declares that the prophet Elijah would return before the Day of the LORD. In the context of the passage, this implies that it would be shortly before the day of judgment. Indeed - John the Baptist helped people and preached the message, but he was the promised messenger from Isaiah and Malachi 3:1, not the Elijah from Malachi 4:5-6. Also, although Elijah did indeed return with Moses to speak to Jesus during the Transfiguration, he did not do what this passage said he will do. This is why we see Jesus say of Elijah, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things." This is why he is likely one of the Two Witnesses mentioned in Revelation 11:1-12. Not only do the witnesses clothed in similar clothing to what Elijah wore in the 800s BC, but the miracles they perform - power to shut up the sky or call down fire - are things that Elijah did during his ministry (1st Kings 17-18).

With this said, why does Jesus imply (and the disciples understand) that when he says that Elijah has also "already come," so to speak? The final puzzle piece is cleared up via Dr. Luke's gospel. Prior to his conception and subsequent birth, John's father Zachariah went into the Temple in Jerusalem, and the angel Gabriel (who previously appeared to Daniel five centuries before) appeared. According to Luke 1:17, when Gabriel was speaking of the soon-to-be-born John the Baptist, "he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Malachi 4:6). It is not a matter of John the Baptist as a reborn Elijah - but simply that he came in the "spirit and power of Elijah," hence Christ's reference.

I hope this answers your question, Anonymous. I apologize for the long-delayed response. Take care, and God bless you!

I was just curious Rev 22:19 says And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

I was wondering if it's possible for men to exclude a piece of the book of Enoch that he wanted us to know. Like the fallen Angels and their assignment in the earth against mankind ?

Anonymous,John's Revelation, written around AD 95, does indeed say not to add to detract from the words of the book. However, a similar warning is also found in Deuteronomy 4:1-2 and Proverbs 30:5-6. Revelation 1:1 identifies Jesus as the principal author of Revelation (technically, the first three chapters are mainly dictations from Jesus to John), and as such, John concludes his book "with a confirmation of His testimony to the finality of the prophecies contained in Revelation. These are His words, and He warns against distorting them in any way, whether through additions, subtractions, falsifications, alterations, or intentional misinterpretations. The warning is explicit and dire. The plagues of Revelation will be visited upon anyone guilty of tampering in any way with the revelations in the book, and those who dare to do so will have no part in eternal life in heaven" (From GotQuestions.org). The warning applies specifically to those who tried to change the words of John's Revelation.

It is also true that this principal applies to Scripture as a whole, and there are a variety of reasons why the sixty-six canonical books should remain the only books in Scripture. But concerning the question about the book of Enoch, I assume you mean either 1st, 2nd or 3rd Enoch. I own and have read these non-canonical books, and there is a myriad of things that disagrees with God's Word, history, archaeology, science and logic. But what about the fallen angels and their assignment against mankind?

I would contend that even if parts of 1st Enoch were true (such as the fallen Grigori, which I hold to be fact), that does not make the book a Biblical work, and there was never any need to use any of it. Why? Because God lets us know in many other places in Scripture about the fallen angels and their assignment. Consider a few key verses that are already in the Bible:

-"The sons of God saw that these daughters were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose... The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of the human beings and had children by them" (Genesis 6:2, 4). According to Christ, angels in heaven could not marry - yet these fallen angels were not in heaven, and likely possessed the bodies of mortal men to create offspring (if you follow the theory that the sons of God were fallen angels).- "If God places no trust in his servants, if he charges his angels with error" (Job 4:18). Implies that the angels have the capability to fall, and that some already did.- Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, concerning Lucifer/Satan, contribute to the notion of falling from heaven.- "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:18).- 1st Peter 3:19-10 is a possible reference.- "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment" (2nd Peter 2:4). Fairly clear reference right here.- "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling - these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great day" (Jude 6).- Revelation contains a multitude of references and possible references to this idea.

Clearly, Scripture has a handful of references to the fallen angels and their assignment in the earth against mankind without any extra-Biblical works. While the book of Enoch may provide more details, some have suggested that the work itself is demonically inspired like the Koran, hence the higher detail. Biblically, God is a God of surprises and tends to provide little details here and there so we can search through his Scriptures - thereby learning along the way - for answers. Hope this has helped!

Our actions, values and our beliefs define who we are as human beings. We must interpret things with what our hearts and minds tells us is GOD's truth, universal truth. Do not accept any mans words without question, whether written or otherwise. That type of thinking goes against every fabric, every molecule inside every human being. GOD has given us the gift of consciousness and reason.Konstantine-13

Pure and simple Enoch was taught by nothing more than Ancient Aliens... Taken aboard ships countless times over and over. The Aliens guided man from day one. We are nothing more than hybrid offspring of aliens that worked on our dna way back when they first came In contact about 400,000 years ago, and they continue to make contact in many different ways. All the bibles around the world are right with the accounts written. The only thing Is that they are interpret wrong by priests In every country world wide. Nothing more than alien contact.

I would take the time to write a detailed reply to this particular comment, but this article should sum up my thoughts:http://thetruth-blog.blogspot.com/2010/11/aliens-do-they-exist-are-they-mentioned.html

Subscribe To:

About The Author

Raised in a "non-denominational" branch of Christianity, I later became captivated by the Franciscan tradition within Christianity and its emphasis on living out the faith prayerfully, mindfully, and simply. Over the past few years while earning my Bachelor's degree in Theological Studies, my focus has shifted from orthodoxy to orthopraxy, and from debate to dialogue. I have remained open to new theological possibilities and explorations, ever-endeavoring to learn more and love deeper. I have a deep love of all things astronomy, and consider myself a "geek" and lover of sci-fi and fantasy. In my writings, I seek to harmonize these passions to create and explore the vast possibilities available to us. I wish my readers peace and all good!